Chansley

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You can play the semantic game all you want, there are federal laws people are charged with. It’s a matter of public record.

Actually, I've been responding to the semantic "game" that you and others play of labeling something as an insurrection for political effect.

The number of federal cases against individuals involved in the Capitol Hill Siege stands at 602. According to the latest analysis of the cases:

The average age of individuals was 39-years-old.
Individuals came from 44 states and the District of Columbia.
Cases have been brought against 523 men (87%) and 79 women (13%).
The largest numbers came from Florida (64), Texas (58), and Pennsylvania (53).
The majority (>85%) were charged in part using evidence from their personal social media accounts, others' accounts, or both
70 (12%) have military experience (65 Veterans, 2 National Guard, 2 Reserve, 1 Active Duty)

What lead these people to believe the election was stolen?

Lawsuits?

The "Kraken" lawsuits failed before every judge that heard their cases: Trump appointees, before Bush appointees (both), and Obama appointees alike.

Every single one rebuked them.

"This lawsuit represents a historic and profound abuse of the judicial process."

A federal judge in Michigan orders sanctions for Sidney Powell, Lin Wood and seven other pro-Trump lawyers for their election fraud lawsuit based on conspiracy theories.

So who and how did some group of people convince these largely middle aged, middle class Americans that the election was stolen?

Who were the proponents and funders of the stop the steal groups, how was this information disseminated?
What would someone gain from this movement and how would it work?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't "know" (a semantic possibility that those who play the semantic game of calling something an armed insurrection without proving that label yet "knowing" it is the correct one) if an actual, semantically correct "insurrection" took place.

And none of your above pieces of information even begins to illustrate that such a thing did take place. On the contrary, you referred to it as a "siege".

The semantic game changes from day to day.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I don't "know" (a semantic possibility that those who play the semantic game of calling something an armed insurrection without proving that label yet "knowing" it is the correct one) if an actual, semantically correct "insurrection" took place.

And none of your above pieces of information even begins to illustrate that such a thing did take place. On the contrary, you referred to it as a "siege".

The semantic game changes from day to day.

There’s no need to guess what the StopTheSteal crew intended to do. They did it. They breached the Capitol. They might even have posted to Facebook a video of themselves doing so: “We’re in! We’re in! Derrick Evans is in the Capitol!” The “strong anti-government views” of those who stormed the Capitol left the realm of merely words and became actual violence.

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

There’s no need to guess what the StopTheSteal crew intended to do. They did it. They breached the Capitol. They might even have posted to Facebook a video of themselves doing so: “We’re in! We’re in! Derrick Evans is in the Capitol!” The “strong anti-government views” of those who stormed the Capitol left the realm of merely words and became actual violence.

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Aha! Now it's seditious conspiracy. Will all 600+ be charged and convicted of this? Will the whole thing be an armed insurrection?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Aha! Now it's seditious conspiracy. Will all 600+ be charged and convicted of this? Will the whole thing be an armed insurrection?

We will see, do you think the DOJ is just playing?

Virtually every federal criminal statute has a hidden feature; primary offenders and even their
most casual accomplices face equal punishment. This is the work of 18 U.S.C. § 2, which visits
the same consequences on anyone who orders or intentionally assists in the commission of a
federal crime.
Aiding and abetting means assisting in the commission of someone else’s crime. Section 2(a)
demands that the defendant embrace the crime of another and consciously do something to
contribute to its success. An accomplice must know the offense is afoot if he is to intentionally
contribute to its success. While a completed offense is a prerequisite to conviction for aiding and
abetting, the hands-on offender need be neither named nor convicted.
On occasion, an accomplice will escape liability, either by judicial construction or administrative
grace. This happens most often when there is a perceived culpability gap between accomplice and
primary offender. Such accomplices are usually victims, customers, or subordinates of a primary
offender. On other occasions, an accomplice will be charged as a co-conspirator because the facts
that will support accomplice liability will ordinarily support conspirator liability and conspiracy is
a separate offense.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

We will see, do you think the DOJ is just playing?

Waiting and seeing is what I've done throughout all the attempts to bring Trump down. Unlike others
who made confidant predictions which often proved wrong.

And I don't think the DOJ is just playing. Don't know if it ever does.
And this DOJ may well prosecute to the hilt, and more, anything associated with Trump.